To safeguard the colony, male settlers of a certain age in Massachusetts and Virginia were required to arm themselves and partake in militia training. This practice was followed eventually by all colonies. However, legislative measures were enacted to restrict arms possession and militia participation irregularly to certain demographics, which included Indians, indentured servants, slaves and religious groups.

We are all familiar with the confrontations with Native Americans in the Colonies and Canada prior to 1800. The South, in addition to Indian troubles, was also confronted by the threat of Spanish incursions (1704), the specter of slave uprisings like the Stono Rebellion (1759) and numerous slave revolutions in the Caribbean, especially in Haiti (1790). Militias and often irregular armed bands of whites formed to protect life and property, capture runaways, and quell potential and actual insurrections. However, deficiencies in training and performance within some militias concerned leaders such as Washington that the militia system for a national defense was of limited reliability.

Tensions escalated with British attempts to restrict gun imports and attempts to empty colonial armories, raising fears of future limitations on private gun ownership by the newly formed federal government. British offers of freedom to slaves willing to fight amplified concerns that a national army might not support the South over the very real threat of a slave revolt. During the 1788 Constitutional Convention in Virginia, figures such as James Madison and Patrick Henry vehemently opposed the notion of a National Army. They ardently advocated for the adoption of the Second Amendment so as to ensure control over their expanding restless slave populations. Immediately following passage of the 10 amendments to further police their state’s concerns, Virginia enacted laws to exclude African Americans from militia membership. The National Militia Act of 1792 added its voice and stated, “Every free and able-bodied WHITE MALE citizen … be enrolled in the militia.”

To emphasize the point: No militia membership, no right to arms. Despite these constraints, the Colonies and the federal government were happy to recruit non-whites into the militia or national army when needed — also, not recognized as citizens.

Let us parse a few of the words of The Second Amendment:

1. Established the RIGHT to bear arms. However, that RIGHT appears to have been conditional for marginalized people. (Denied membership in a militia and therefore denied gun ownership. Other laws denied gun ownership until recently. Also, denied citizenship until 1868.)

2. A distinction between the PEOPLE vs. the INDIVIDUAL — implying a GROUP vs. SELF (the people ARE vs. IS), an armed militia vs. an armed individual.

3. How to define ARMS further complicates the issue. From eg knife to atom bomb. At what point is an arm no longer an arm?

Resolving these issues remains elusive amidst the emotionally charged climate of contemporary discourse. However, examining the historical context sheds light, we hope, on the current issues surrounding a right to bear arms.

The Second Amendment was undoubtedly a product of its time. The question of whether it should be for our time is contentious. Though it’s notable that the third garners little attention.

Hubbard C. Goodrich is a Harpswell resident.

Copy the Story Link